Will: LBJ's 'Great Society' failed America in several areas

Standing on his presidential limousine, Lyndon Johnson, campaigning in Providence, R.I., in September 1964, bellowed through a bullhorn: “We’re in favor of a lot of things, and we’re against mighty few.” This was a synopsis of what he had said four months earlier.

Fifty years ago, at the University of Michigan, Johnson had proposed legislating into existence a Great Society. It would end poverty and racial injustice, “but that is just the beginning.” It would “rebuild the entire urban United States” while fending off “boredom and restlessness,” slaking “the hunger for community” and enhancing “the meaning of our lives” — all by assembling “the best thought and the broadest knowledge.”

In 1964, 76 percent of Americans trusted government to do the right thing “just about always or most of the time. Today, 19 percent do. The former number is one reason Johnson did so much; the latter is one consequence of his doing so.

He remains, regarding government’s role, the most consequential 20th-century president. Indeed, the American Enterprise Institute’s Nicholas Eberstadt, in his measured new booklet “The Great Society at Fifty: The Triumph and the Tragedy,” says LBJ, more than FDR, “profoundly recast the common understanding of the ends of governance.”

When Johnson became president in 1963, Social Security was America’s only nationwide social program. His programs and those they subsequently legitimated put the nation on the path to the present, in which changed social norms — dependency on government has been destigmatized — have changed America’s national character.

Between 1959 and 1966 — before the War on Poverty was implemented — the percentage of Americans living in poverty plunged by about one-third, from 22.4 to 14.7, slightly lower than in 2012.

But, Eberstadt cautions, the poverty rate is “incorrigibly misleading” because government transfer payments have made income levels and consumption levels significantly different. Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, disability payments, heating assistance and other entitlements have, Eberstadt says, made income “a poor predictor of spending power for lower-income groups.” Stark material deprivation is now rare:

“By 2011 ... average per capita housing space for people in poverty was higher than the U.S. average for 1980. ... [Many] appliances were more common in officially impoverished homes in 2011 than in the typical American home of 1980. ... DVD players, personal computers, and home Internet access are now typical in them.”

But the institutionalization of anti-poverty policy has been, Eberstadt says carefully, “attended” by the dramatic spread of a “tangle of pathologies.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan coined that phrase in his 1965 report calling attention to family disintegration among African-Americans. The tangle, which now ensnares all races and ethnicities, includes welfare dependency and “flight from work.”

Twenty-nine percent of Americans — about 47 percent of blacks and 48 percent of Hispanics — live in households receiving means-tested benefits. And “the proportion of men 20 and older who are employed has dramatically and almost steadily dropped since the start of the War on Poverty, falling from 80.6 percent in January 1964 to 67.6 percent 50 years later.” Because work — independence, self-reliance — is essential to the culture of freedom, ominous developments have coincided with Great Society policies:

For every adult man ages 20 to 64 who is between jobs and looking for work, more than three are neither working nor seeking work, a trend that began with the Great Society. And what Eberstadt calls “the earthquake that shook family structure in the era of expansive anti-poverty policies” has seen out-of-wedlock births increase from 7.7 percent in 1965 to more than 40 percent in 2012, including 72 percent of black babies.

LBJ’s starkly bifurcated legacy includes the triumphant Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 — and the tragic aftermath of much of his other works. Eberstadt asks: Is it “simply a coincidence” male flight from work and family breakdown have coincided with Great Society policies, and dependence on government is more widespread and perhaps more habitual than ever?

Goldwater’s insistent 1964 question is increasingly pertinent: “What’s happening to this country of ours?”

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

It is probably isn't enough that Will uses a right wing economist, also hack, to make a case against The Great Society, but taking Daniel Patrick Moynihan out of context is unbearable. It is completely dishonest to say that Moynihan was referring to the culture of African Americans in inner cities 50 years ago. He wasn't. He was referring to the affects of RACISM, not a culture or program that had not been enacted yet.

Moynihan, as Johnson's assistant Secretary of Labor, wrote in his report:

"In this new period the expectations of the Negro Americans will go beyond civil rights. Being Americans, they will now expect that in the near future equal opportunities for them as a group will produce roughly equal results, as compared with other groups. This is not going to happen. Nor will it happen for generations to come unless a new and special effort is made.

There are two reasons. First, the racist virus in the American blood stream still afflicts us: Negroes will encounter serious personal prejudice for at least another generation. Second, three centuries of sometimes unimaginable mistreatment have taken their toll on the Negro people. The harsh fact is that as a group, at the present time, in terms of ability to win out in the competitions of American life, they are not equal to most of those groups with which they will be competing. Individually, Negro Americans reach the highest peaks of achievement. But collectively, in the spectrum of American ethnic and religious and regional groups, where some get plenty and some get none, where some send eighty percent of their children to college and others pull them out of school at the 8th grade, Negroes are among the weakest.”

The right wing has also erroneously used statistical data to support their theories on work ethic, culture, and race which in itself is racist and a facile argument that takes no skill in making. It is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

Nonetheless, this facile argument has been used by conservatives in "The Southern Strategy" to win over southern racist for decades now. Reagan perfected it by using negative stereotype to win over the South in 1980. Only after that did he start to undo the programs that had only been in effect for a generation. Only one generation to help make right centuries of injustice? You have to want to be President pretty bad.

Not only did Reagan attack the very programs that helped minorities make great gains, he attacked the middle class and working class which had a compounding affect on minorities. When he got into office, "the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office. One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."

So when you try to make a case for broken families within the minority communities, probably a good idea to look at the added stress of stagnating wages, institutionalized bigotry, and the greatest level of inequality in history.

Inequality and lack of opportunity made worse by bigoted Tea Party Obstructionists who have blocked any chance of a Jobs Bill for 3 1/2 years during a recession that Republicans helped to create. Blocking Opportunities while cutting back on vital programs and using racial stereotype adding insult to injury.

Conservatives have not limited their stereotyping to minorities. The bigot Charles Murray essentially considers many non affluent, struggling whites in "The Coming Apart" to be ethnic whites.

It is really hard to make a case that "redistribution" has made the working class lazy and takers when you defend the obstruction and policies that prevent folks from moving ahead. Blocking progress in Congress hurts everyone. For that matter, trickle up economics has redistributed more wealth to the wealthy. Corporate Welfare is estimated to be around 92 billion a year. Almost twice that of social programs.

Will and Eberstadt are correct that actions come with unintended consequences. They oversimplify and overlook what has occurred over 50 years and its relationship to the general economy. The reality is far more complex than they portray.

When you provide assistance for a poor person, that aid stops not with the recipient but goes round and round in the local economy. Food stamps are used at local grocery stores, and become a significant part of the income for the owner and employees of the store. They spend that money in turn. Everyone in the community gets a part of that welfare money either directly or indirectly. The advertisers in the Avalanche-Journal are on the welfare take, and so is the Journal itself. Welfare is like a stimulus payment to the commmunity.

I'm not saying welfare is good or bad but that the effect is spread out far beyond the impoverished. Are you a basher of welfare recipients? Look to your own income; one way or another, part of it comes from welfare.

Take the most remote case: say you're a farmer and not a retailer. The prices you get for your crops reflect to some extent spending by those receiving public benefits. Actually, our big agricultural corporations and food processors have benefited from the food stamp program, and certain products tend to be favored by food stamp recipients that are scorned by those higher up the economic ladder.

Very likely you receive more from welfare than you pay out in taxes that are spent on welfare; that is the multiplier effect.

Moving on. Yes, the poorest who are not homeless do live in far larger, better equipped houses and apartments. The houses lived in by the poor of 50 years ago are nearly all gone! Torn down long ago, either because of condemnation or because the land was purchased and something else built there.

Those of us who were in Lubbock in the early 1960s and before remember "negratown," between Ave. A and the Burlington Northern railroad tracks and 19th St and 4th St and around the cattle auction on Ave. E. Genuine shacks, often 1-2 rooms, tar-papered or covered with asphalt shingles, often with with no bathroom, often no utilities. All gone, and you probably can't even find photos. But they were there, Lubbockites lived there 50-60 years ago.

Poverty has gotten more expensive. The poor live higher on the hog, live in far more costly housing. Who benefits? To an extent, the poor do, but it all costs them more and helps to keep them in poverty. Landlords benefit, construction contractors, building material suppliers benefit, utility companies benefit, and so on.

Were the poor better off in shantytown? Well, it's debatable. In shantytown you could raise chickens and goats free of today's restrictive codes. You probably knew how to live off the land, planting a garden -- which is an opportunity not available to dwellers in concrete canyons and the knowledge and motivation to grow one's own food is a skill often lacking today. Your cost of living was very low in shantytown, low even in proportion to your income compared to today.

Consider what happened with the McDougal Redevelopment -- and I am not here to bash that. That redevelopment demolished cheaper housing and substituted more costly housing, not only in that development but elsewhere as the supply of cheap housing shrank and those who were moved out of Overton North faced paying higher rent and higher mortgages. Result? Greater dependence on welfare benefits. More profit for others.

So it goes.

George Will didn't even try to explain the real situation among blacks. Welfare and the earnings of working black women fund a population of roving black males who live off of the income of women, moving from one to another and often leaving children or pregnant women behind.

This is to a degree being copied among hispanics and whites. These roving males constitute most of the unemployed-not-looking-for-work. Welfare didn't create this situation -- it existed before -- but it has failed to extinguish it. The alternative of course is to allow people to be so poor that the roving males are forced to work and contribute, or turn to crime for money, their choice, and many have made that choice and gone the wrong way. Will and Eberstadt are welcome to turn their cerebral skills to this problem and give us a solution.

If you seek to evaluate success or failure of the Great Society programs, you need to look at education levels then and now, at disease and health statistics then and now, and most of all at the numbers who have been helped into independence and/or employment by welfare programs. Does Eberstadt? Does Will in the above column? The real test is in how many lives were made better.

Still another aspect not looked at is population growth. Population growth feeds our economy, provides a source of cheaper labor, sends recruits to the military, means more retail sales and consumption.

But America's poor are a major contributor to population growth. People who are poor tend to have more children than those who are well off economically. Those children are born poor and later may escape poverty, or not. In the case of girls and women, having children and having children at a young age keeps them in a permanent underclass educationally and economically.

Will's and Eberstadt's conclusions about the success of The Great Society might better apply where the poor do not reproduce explosively and where borders are closed to illegal immigrants, but what we have is a general population that that has grown steadily in the three generations since LBJ's Great Society, for social and biological reasons, and much of that growth is among those who are poor, getting welfare.

If we had given a priority on sex education, contraceptives, and abortions to limit family size for welfare recipients, and if we had kept the poor from crossing our borders, we might have nearly stamped out poverty by now. But we didn't. There were reasons why we didn't, why we couldn't.

The fact that the poor are a differentially-growing population means that Johnson's welfare program could not end poverty for all time. Will and Eberstadt do not understand this.

It is certainly true that racists, including the Klan, resented programs that helped the impoverished, especially minorities.

However, when we ignorantly stereotype recipients of such programs, we do so at our own peril. White Americans account for the majority of welfare recipients. And 98% of food stamp recipients are our vets, the disabled, the elderly, children, and the working poor.

It doesn't take much intellect to make a facile argument against these programs using stereotype.

Furthermore, 92 billion in corporate welfare is given out annually to folks that don't need it. That is almost twice the amount of social programs that go to people who do need it.

W5, not everyone here was raised by the Klan as you claim to be. I was born in Texas and raised here. Not by the Klan, though.

And there are many hard working poor that use the SNAP program because they are paid poverty wages. The minimum wage is in real terms less than it was in the 1960's. Please demonstrate how there are not requirements for assistance programs, social programs. Do it. Do not be a coward.

So not only do you insult these hardworking folks, you insult many veterans that are in need of food assistance as well.

I have been paying taxes for decades and decades. I am glad to see that my taxes can help those in need. I don't consider them freeloaders at all.

I have seen some farmers in my time that have taken advantage of the farm bill while paying field hands hardly anything.

I have seen wealthy corporations receive tax subsidies they did not earn or did not need.

I see the ignorance in some of your comments and understand why it is possible for you to support subsidizing the wealthy while ignorantly stereotyping the hard working poor. You do all of this while your political party blocks further opportunity for the poor and unemployed in Congress.

This is W5 in his own words defending Jim Crow Laws which were used to discriminate against minorities. W5 is a throwback to Jim Crow. His previous comment affirms it. He would much rather relegate minorities to the pleasures of the Jim Crow legal system which didn't work for minorities.

This is W5 in his own words describing what the majority of racists kept saying about segregation for 100 years::

"My purpose is to try to get a few people to understand that if you want something that is worthwhile, then save your pennies until you can purchase it, or if it is a legal issue, work through legal channels to correct the problem and not expect someone else to do it for you!"

says W5 in defense of states' rights to discriminate. W5 does not want protections for minorities. W5 reserves both the right to discriminate and to encourage minorities to use a racist system to try and prove they were discriminated against. In other words, W5's discrimination goes unpunished. Please go to link below for context.

This is W5 expressing a fair amount of racism and ignorance on the topic of Affirmative Action. W5 uses a negative athlete stereotype to describe an entire race. W5 is incapable of seeing a black student as anything other than an athlete. W5 goes on to stereotype professional black athletes like a racist. W5 is incapable of understanding that sports scholarships are not affirmative action for minority students with good grades who benefit from college admissions.

"Throwing money at a problem has never worked, as an example, look at the majority of black pro. players in the entire sports field, there are few that can read at high school levels, yet the liberals want to give them more wiggle room instead of teaching them good study ethics, and in order to learn you must be able to read and understand what you read"

The idiocy is hard to fathom. Please see link below for complete context.

This is hilarious since I doubt W5's Klan family members were liberals. I just can't see them in their silly Klan outfits marching for the rights of African Americans. Much less riding on a bus full of Jews and African American freedom riders during the 60's. That might have been confusing!!

W5 goes on to inadvertently, "perhaps", disrespect tax payer funded government programs that helped our veterans. Like the GI Bill and Food Stamps.

You tend to be rather disgraceful to most Americans who have served or are hard working folks trying to put food on the table. You have disrespected the hard working family farmer who has had to sell his land and ask for food assistance while he works at Walmart. You have disgraced the vet who has used the GI Bill to make our country stronger. YOU have disgraced the widowed grandmother raising a child whose parents were killed and SS survivors benefits were the only thing keeping food on the table.

You have disgraced many hardworking blue caller folks whose jobs were shipped overseas.

W5, what a disgrace and an embarrassment your ignorant commentary is for many Texans.

How were your parents able to be members of a racist hate group and march with Jews and African Americans for civil rights? Did they provide a little Klan outfit for you?

The Bigotry of the Klan

This is W5 in his own words defending Jim Crow Laws which were used to discriminate against minorities. W5 is a throwback to Jim Crow. His previous comment affirms it. He would much rather relegate minorities to the pleasures of the Jim Crow legal system which didn't work for minorities.

This is W5 in his own words describing what the majority of racists kept saying about segregation for 100 years::

"My purpose is to try to get a few people to understand that if you want something that is worthwhile, then save your pennies until you can purchase it, or if it is a legal issue, work through legal channels to correct the problem and not expect someone else to do it for you!"

says W5 in defense of states' rights to discriminate. W5 does not want protections for minorities. W5 reserves both the right to discriminate and to encourage minorities to use a racist system to try and prove they were discriminated against. In other words, W5's discrimination goes unpunished. Please go to link below for context.

This is W5 expressing a fair amount of racism and ignorance on the topic of Affirmative Action. W5 uses a negative athlete stereotype to describe an entire race. W5 is incapable of seeing a black student as anything other than an athlete. W5 goes on to stereotype professional black athletes like a racist. W5 is incapable of understanding that sports scholarships are not affirmative action for minority students with good grades who benefit from college admissions.

"Throwing money at a problem has never worked, as an example, look at the majority of black pro. players in the entire sports field, there are few that can read at high school levels, yet the liberals want to give them more wiggle room instead of teaching them good study ethics, and in order to learn you must be able to read and understand what you read"

The idiocy is hard to fathom. Please see link below for complete context.

This is hilarious since I doubt W5's Klan family members were liberals. I just can't see them in their silly Klan outfits marching for the rights of African Americans. Much less riding on a bus full of Jews and African American freedom riders during the 60's. That might have been confusing!!

W5 goes on to inadvertently, "perhaps", disrespect tax payer funded government programs that helped our veterans. Like the GI Bill and Food Stamps.

Shucks, NWL told me I was a member of the klan though I do not know a single person who has ever been in the klan.

Here is your complete quote (not out of context as NWL posts): "As far as the Klan goes--I was raised by a family of liberal dems(who some were in the Klan) and have never seen eye to eye with them and certainly do not support their ideas."

NWL probably hates you because you are a quarter native American. He says your heritage does not matter but then uses heritage in most of his arguments.

You have not disgraced any one and have provided many valid points. Do not let NWL's bullying influence your posts.

You were trying to go off topic with legacy preferences. W5, of course, did not say he supported discrimination, you just like to make judgment on everyone here. Here is your quote, the whole paragraph.

"I'm not concerned with your heritage, I am concerned with what you think about legacy preferences."

The only difference is that you sit on your throne passing judgment on every passerby, while you are a.... well, I am not allowed to say it.

A nanny. He doesn't even know what AA is. He used a racist stereotype for an entire race. He wants to stereotype black athletes and thereby the entire race. He does not discuss intelligent minority students who meet the criteria for college admissions and would benefit from AA.

He never addressed legacy preferences. So I don't know what you are talking about.

And yes, W5, admitted that he would rather have the legal system the way it was before Brown v Board of Ed. Jim Crow.

The way you constantly browbeat everyone I just wanted to give him a little encouragement.

NWL: "He never addressed legacy preferences. So I don't know what you are talking about." I never said he did. I said you tried to change the subject to legacy preferences. I said, "You were trying to go off topic with legacy preferences". This reading thing must be hard for you. Luckily you have the Ctrl + C / Ctrl + V down pat.

For some reason you rarely include quotes of other people. I wonder why that is...

because they are relevant and part of the debate on Affirmative Action. I even ask you about them, yet you balked.

Legacy Preferences, like Affirmative Action 'were', went through the Board of Regents in Michigan. Legacy Preferences heavily favor white students.

It is part of the topic.

What I find mind numbing and revealing is that you are defending someone who used a racist stereotype to describe an entire race. You are defending someone who doesn't even know what Affirmative Action is. W5 doesn't even have a clue. What I also find revealing is that the person you are defending has admitted familial ties to the Klan and while he claims he didn't see eye to eye with them, he agreed with them enough to use a racist stereotype to demean an entire race. Affirmative Action has nothing to do with W5's racist stereotyping of professional athletes. Affirmative Action has nothing to do with sports. It is academic.

The real kicker is that this is par for the course for you. Please continue to defend the bigotry of W5 and others, even your own.

I don't brow beat people. I don't mind pointing out bigotry.

The Great Society went a long way to reverse some of the affects of the institutionalized bigotry that is still with this nation today.

I will be here a long time, BW. If you want to defend everyone I disagree with, you will be very busy.

Edited to add, why don't you just worry about yourself instead of defending the indefensible.